OCLC had a MARC discussion paper about “Coding Named Events in the MARC 21 Authority and Bibliographic Formats” [1] on this Midwinter’s meeting agenda of the MARC Advisory Committee [2], with the options of X11 and a new field group X47.


For the German speaking part of the MARC community, I would have liked to see a third option, coding events not acting as agents (single battles, etc.) in the field group X50 (GND example at [3], LCSH equivalent at [4]), and leaving only events that are acting as agents (conferences, meetings, etc.) in the X11 fields.


The discussion, including a straw vote, favored the X47 approach, and the issue will come back as a proposal in June for ALA Annual.






[1] http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2016/2016-dp09.html

[2] http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/mw2016_age.html

[3] http://d-nb.info/gnd/4340850-3

[4] https://lccn.loc.gov/sh85059257



Reinhold Heuvelmann

German National Library

Information Infrastructure

Office for Data Formats

Adickesallee 1

D-60322 Frankfurt am Main


Telephone: +49 (0) 69 1525-1709

Telefax: +49 (0) 69 1525-1799

mailto:[log in to unmask]



*** Reading. Listening. Understanding. German National Library ***






Von: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Tim Thompson
Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Januar 2016 22:41
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: [BIBFRAME] Events proposal for BIBFRAME 2.0


I agree, the proposed usage of bf:Content does seem somewhat counterintuitive. It is the bf:Event that provides content to the derivative bf:Work, not the other way around--which is just another way of saying that the bf:Work depicts or captures the bf:Event.

For examples of Events that could be modeled as Works, wouldn't things like performance art qualify, or jazz or hip-hop performances (the latter are examples that Karen Coyle cites in her book on FRBR)? As Works, their temporal quality is a defining aspect of how they are expressed.

Out of curiosity, I just did a search in the Name Authority File and found a few authority records for performance art works, for example: http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n2013032123.html. So there is precedent even under current practice, although we lack the vocabulary or conceptual model to encode Temporal Works adequately.

Which leads to another thorny issue. What about bf:Meetings as bf:Events? There is no mention of them in the Event proposal, but it seems like another area that could lead to confusion. Would it be more consistent to make bf:Meeting a subclass of bf:Event, rather than bf:Agent, or to make it a subclass of both?

In our current cataloging practice, we throw a lot of things into the MARC 111 field. Sometimes we treat those things as agents. For example, we might treat a conference as the corporate author of its proceedings. In other cases, however, it might not be an agent at all, but rather an event.

I recently cataloged a book about a dramatic performance of Brazilian indigenous culture that occurred in 1550 in Rouen, France, performed by 50 members of the Brazilian Tabajara and Tupinamba tribes and 250 French sailors  To my surprise, someone had already created an authority record for this event: http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no2010085847.html. However, it wasn't cataloged as a MARC 150 topic, but as a MARC 111 "conference" (i.e., bf:Meeting). LC even has a list of "Ambiguous Entities," some of which can be "names," and other of which can be "subjects." "Generic" events (funerals are cited) are treated as subjects, whereas "named" events (exhibitions, conferences, contests) are treated as agents[1]. So, can Events be Agents as well as Works?


[1] http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/alpha405.html

Tim A. Thompson
Metadata Librarian (Spanish/Portuguese Specialty)
Princeton University Library


On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Denenberg, Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Oddrun Ohren

> • Not being sure how explicitly point *1.c*of the proposal is meant, I’d just like

> to point out that events may play other roles than being the *subject* of some

> work,


The line "A bf:Event will be described in the same manner as other BIBFRAME Subject Types.."  is poorly worded (my fault).  Probably better would be: "An event will be described in the same manner as other external resources."

For example, a person.  While a bf:Person is a BIBFRAME resource, it consists of simply a label, and a link to an external description of the person (a MADS description, FOAF, VIAF, etc.).  That's really all that that was trying to say: the concept of a  bf:Event relies on the availability of an external description of that event. (Except that for the event, there may be some basic properties besides just the label within the BIBFRAME resource, for example date and time, but for any additional description there will have to be an external resource describing the event.)



 it might be useful to

> represent  life-cycle events of a work (launching, publication, recording)

> explicitly in some cases. At any rate we should take care that the Event class is

> not modelled in such a way that one specific role is assumed.

Event, as we currently envision it to be modeled, will not include these life-cycle events, we plan to model these differently. Tentatively, there will be a property with name something like bf:originationActivity and class bf:OriginationActivity, with subclasses like bf:Publication, bf:Distribution, and so on, and each of these will have properties like agent, date, place.



> I am not

> able to see what bf:Content contributes other than extra

> (unnecessary)  complexity… o Firstly,  it is problematic to constrain something as

> general-sounding as Content to be a capture of an Event.

We are currently considering changing the name to EventContent.


> o Secondly, if bf:depicts/bf:captures are defined as properties of both Work and

> Event (like their parent bf:subject) with expected value *any resource*

> (instances of any BIBFRAME class, including Work), there should be no need for

> bf:Content. This way, bf:depicts/bf:captures could also be used to represent the

> fact that some works capture other works (e.g. photographs of paintings).

> o Lastly, seeing that the existing subclasses of Work are more or less disjunct,

> bf:Content will create confusion, as it clearly overlaps several of the existing

> subclasses.

These are good points and we will need to discuss them.



> It will also be possible to represent

> events as a work where appropriate, without losing the possibility to express

> information about capturing

Do you have an example of an Event that could be modelled as a Work?



Thanks much for your comments and suggestions.